This topic was touched upon in another thread but rather than cludder that up I've created a new thread:

Quote:

Originally posted by RooJay I don't recall any of the promotional materials for this movie state that it was anywhere near an attempt at education. In my opinion, Pearl Harbor is simply a major, traumatic event that takes place during this movie (in spite of the title). I don't think it dishonors the memory of anyone involved with the actual event. In fact, I'd hope that it would help raise public interest and cause people to seek out the true story. The movie Tora, Tora, Tora might make for a good starting point for that.

This is my biggest problem with movies like this. Pearl Harbor was about the attack on Pearl Harbor. With that being said, how can someone rewrite it? Change the facts and it's no longer the attack on Pearl Harbor. Why not make a movie about the Doolittle Raid and rename Doolittle? If I had relatives who were participants who were decorated for their actions I wouldn't want a movie to take their story and assign it to some made up character.

Only one American pilot of 7 survived the Battle of Britain. His name was PO J K Haviland of 151 Squadron. No where is his name to be found.

Quote:

Ok...ok, here's the thing: what I said was that there were only two pilots (I have done a fair amount of research on the subject, and I honestly have never heard of this hird pilot being able to lift off during the attack. Was he already in the air?) that managed to get off the ground DURING the battle. This is absolutely true. The two of them managed to shoot down somewhere between 6 and 8 enemy fighters combined; the actual numbers these two pilots shot down have never been confirmed. I'm sure there were many planes that managed to get off the ground later that day, but there were only two during the battle that managed to lift off. I'm also certain there were other planes already in the air (like the bombers you mentioned, though they didn't arrive until well into the battle, and had very little effect on the battle itself.

Recheck that research. 4 of the total pilots to get off the ground got off during the first wave. Remember their were 2 total that day, 183 Japanese aircraft the first wave and 170 the second. All 4 were in P-36 Hawks. The USAF has an exhibit honoring one of those P-36 pilots, Lt. Phillip Rasmussen, who was given a Silver Star for his actions that day.

Additional pilots got airbourne after the first wave as well as during the second wave including some flying P-40 Warhawks.

Quote:

Likewise, any other military aircraft that were already airborn; no other type of plane was able to shoot down any enemy craft, and the japanese Zeroes would have flown circles around them.

Not every plane the Japanese flies is a Zero. A majority of the aircraft that day flown by the Japanese were bombers, torpedo and dive bombers. All of those types are poor air-to-air combat aircraft and were fair game for even the aweful American P-36.

23 of the 75 airmen involved in the Doolittle raid recieved Distinguished Flying Crosses. Rather than include those brave men in the movie they've been replaced by fictional characters. Why?

It would be fine to use the attack of Pearl Harbor as a backdrop for a fictional story. Saving Private Ryan used the Normandy Invasion as a backdrop for a fictional story quite successfully in my opionion. Spielberg didn't rewrite the story of known/decorated soldiers to tell his story. If you decide to make a movie about such specific actions in any historical event then you must try to honor those that were involved. Black Hawk Down is a perfect example of translating a historic event to the big screen. Band of Brothers is a perfect example of translating a historic event to the small screen.

08-05-2002

QLD

Most of my issues aren't with the historical accuracy really.

My issue is with Jerry Bruckheimer being a sucky sucky director who makes sucky sucky movies.

The retarded love story in that movie made me slap my forehead about 20 times during the movie. And a side story is great, and a nice love story created interest in the characters, but OH MY CHRIST!, there is a frickin' WAR GOING ON! Can I see some of it please?

I would have rather seen a lot more behind the scenes stuff with the president and Dan Ackroyd. I hated almost all of the charcters, especially Alec Baldiwn. "We're gonan bomb it" No, the bomb started a long time ago Alec.

Anyway, I hate this movie ALMOST as much as I hate Armageddon

08-05-2002

JON9000

I think Michael Bay was the director and Bruckheimer was the producer. No matter, this was the same team that brought us moronic masterpieces such as The Rock and Armageddon. I just feel like these movies pander. If only David Lean were alive and working. Pearl Harbor should never have been made. It was nothing more than ID4 combined with Titanic. Schlockfests, all.

08-05-2002

icatch9

I agree, this is not a very historic rendition of the events. However it does show in good acord what the bombing was like. How taken by surprise the US was, and how brutal the attacks where on the people of Pearl Harbor. The fact may not be exact, and the names are not even close. Still, it's based on actual events and never truely ment to be a fact for fact movie. Torra Torra Torra was and it was a very boreing movie, even for the 70's. They had to make this movie more interesting, becasue the Bombing raid happened on one day and only for a short amount of time (in the grand sceem of a movie). So, it could hardly revolve only around that. They could of just re-made Torra x 3 if they wanted to do that. Clearly this movie was made to be a "blockbuster" movie. So, it had to have that "Hollywood" spin on it. I liked Privit Ryan 10xs better, but Pearl Harbor opened the eyes of many people.

You mention Black Hawk Down, a wounderful movie. Still, not 100% accurate. I know they worked close with people who where there and a lot of what happened, happened in the movie. Still, some things where changed to make it a more interesting movie. War is horrible and hell on earth, but it's not that entertaining. A 100% accurate war movie is called a documentary. These arn't made in Hollywood.

On a side note. My dad has probally seen 95% of all war movies ever. I may be exagerating, but you get the point. Anyway, he told me even befor he saw Pear Harbor, that any time there is a female character in a war movie that is a main character the movie is always bad. This is nothing against women at all, it's against a love story mixed in a war story. Think about it. Privite Ryan = Good movie = no women. Black Hawk Down = Good Movie = no women. Full Metal Jacket = Good Movie = no women. Mevis Belle = Good Movie = no women. Flight of the Intruder = Good Movie = No Women. Pearl Harbo = So-So movie = women.

It's simple. Keep those girls out of the war pictures.

08-05-2002

Mandalorian Candidat

Funny that this topic would get posted. I just won the Director's Cut version of PH last week on a radio promo so I watch the whole extended version (3+ hrs.) on Sat. night. I have to say that the whole prestory sucked hard. The only parts I enjoyed were the actual battle scenes because they seemed so real (I've never been in combat before, but those scenes looked like how war might be to me.) and the Dolittle raid portion.

I agree 100% with QLD. I try to avoid anything movie-wise that's produced by Bruckheimer because the pacing is just wacky. I loathed Armageddon and Con Air due to this. I only saw this one because it was free.

I am somewhat sympathetic about the outcome of the movie, aside from the excreble love story, because it's not a typical war movie. You're centering on a battle that didn't last comparitively long and that ended poorly for the good guys. It's tough to make a movie with a positive ending on a subject such as this one.

While I liked the part with the Doolittle raid, it seemed awkward because it was so removed from the Pearl Harbor event. I wish they would have just shown the build up to the attack minus the skirt-chasing and ended with the actual pilots getting their planes off the ground and then shooting down the enemy. There was so much extra that was distracting so I didn't find it to be as good as BHD or SPR.

I hope Bruckheimer sticks to making mindless action crap and stays away from historical events.

08-05-2002

QLD

You know what scared the crap out of me this summer?

That Chris Rock and Anthony Hopkins movie.....

In the previews, it says, A Jerry Bruckheimer and Joel Schumacher production......

I saw that, and was like.....why don't they just say a Charles Manson and Ted Bundy production, because those guys truly kill movies.

08-05-2002

DarthBrandon

Quote:

Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong You know what scared the crap out of me this summer?

That Chris Rock and Anthony Hopkins movie.....

In the previews, it says, A Jerry Bruckheimer and Joel Schumacher production......

I saw that, and was like.....why don't they just say a Charles Manson and Ted Bundy production, because those guys truly kill movies.

If they kill movies, then why do they generate so much money at the box office and on DVD/VHS. The Pearl Harbor that Jerry Bruckheimer made was not meant to be historically correct, it's an action movie, if anybody thought otherwise, then they are gravely mistaken.:)

I agree however that women have no place in war or action movies, the same goes for Titanic, the stupid rushed love story ruined the movie for me, the same way it did Pearl Harbor.

In my opinion the movie should have focused on Pearl, the governments, the war, and the people around the world. I didn't like the fact that they had this very predictable love triangle between those characters. If anything she could have been left out of the movie all together or both friends who were in love with her, could have been decided at the end, when there was one man left standing. Instead of all this mushy stuff, the fighting and bickering between one another, while a war is going on. When one of them dies then the other should have been rewarded with the girl as a replacement for his best friend and to serve as a somewhat happy ending to an unhappy time in history.:)

Jerry Bruckheimer films are just action movies and nothing more, if your looking for something more, then pick another movie like I would. I only watch his types of films when I'm feeling in that mood.:)

08-05-2002

JON9000

Quote:

Originally posted by brandon

If they kill movies, then why do they generate so much money at the box office and on DVD/VHS. The Pearl Harbor that Jerry Bruckheimer made was not meant to be historically correct, it's an action movie, if anybody thought otherwise, then they are gravely mistaken.:)

The problem is that many still remember the attack, the tragic loss of life, and the events it set in motion. To create a lightweight, cheesy, commercial send up of the actual event borders on disrespect for those that lost their lives.

To draw an analogy, would anyone like a movie like this-

some CIA analyst is running around Washington screaming about an impending attack that he picked up over the internet. His cries to the Pentagon go unheeded. Scenes are intercut, some showing Middle Eastern men cursing America and Highjacking the planes, others showing a New York cop and firefighter arguing over some girl. We would get to hear and see the screams of those on board as they realize the impact is coming. Then we would have heroic music playing as our heroes run into the building and save people. The buildings fall, and our heroes put away their differences and join the spec forces to kick some Al-Qaeda butt in Afghanistan. One dies, the other gets the girl.

If any of this sounds darn insensitive, it should. That is basically what happened with the travesty that was Pearl Harbor: A Jerry Bruckheimer Production of a Michael Bay Film. :cry:

08-05-2002

QLD

Well, even if I look at it solely as an action movie, it still falls way short of being good. Especially with the screen time devoted to that hokey love story.

As bad as Pearl Harbor was, Armageddon is it's daddy. That movie is truly king turd of poo island.

08-05-2002

DarthBrandon

Quote:

Originally posted by JON9000

The problem is that many still remember the attack, the tragic loss of life, and the events it set in motion. To create a lightweight, cheesy, commercial send up of the actual event borders on disrespect for those that lost their lives.

To draw an analogy, would anyone like a movie like this-

some CIA analyst is running around Washington screaming about an impending attack that he picked up over the internet. His cries to the Pentagon go unheeded. Scenes are intercut, some showing Middle Eastern men cursing America and Highjacking the planes, others showing a New York cop and firefighter arguing over some girl. We would get to hear and see the screams of those on board as they realize the impact is coming. Then we would have heroic music playing as our heroes run into the building and save people. The buildings fall, and our heroes put away their differences and join the spec forces to kick some Al-Qaeda butt in Afghanistan. One dies, the other gets the girl.

If any of this sounds darn insensitive, it should. That is basically what happened with the travesty that was Pearl Harbor: A Jerry Bruckheimer Production of a Michael Bay Film. :cry:

If you read the entire post then that's basically what I said, to quote just the first part is a bit unfair don't you think. I never took Pearl Harbor as a historically correct film, because it wasn't even close. My point was that people bought into it even though it didnít do anybody that was involved, living or passed on any justice. I never defended him in any way, I only stated something that was true, most of his films are blockbusters, regardless if they are good movies or not. Read the last two parts before you jump down my throat about it. Peace out.:)

Quote:

Originally posted by Brandon I agree however that women have no place in war or action movies, the same goes for Titanic, the stupid rushed love story ruined the movie for me, the same way it did Pearl Harbor.

In my opinion the movie should have focused on Pearl, the governments, the war, and the people around the world. I didn't like the fact that they had this very predictable love triangle between those characters. If anything she could have been left out of the movie all together or both friends who were in love with her, could have been decided at the end, when there was one man left standing. Instead of all this mushy stuff, the fighting and bickering between one another, while a war is going on. When one of them dies then the other should have been rewarded with the girl as a replacement for his best friend and to serve as a somewhat happy ending to an unhappy time in history.

Jerry Bruckheimer films are just action movies and nothing more, if your looking for something more, then pick another movie like I would. I only watch his types of films when I'm feeling in that mood.